Considering the figure of N+#) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to reconstruct a
figure which already existed in the imaginary world of Ancient Israel in biblical
times must fail. Zech 3 and Job 1-2 obstruct the development of a precise image
out of YHWH’s environment. The texts achieve that by their inherent vagueness
of description. For this reason the antagonistic element necessary for the dramatic
plot of both texts does not consist in an already existing, known being. It is
rather named by the abstract term ‘the opponent’, in Hebrew "N+#)".

A Touch of Support: Ps 3,6 and the Psalmistâ€™s Experience 201
(3) 1 Sam 3: Spending the night in the temple of Shiloh near â€œthe
Ark of Godâ€ (v. 3) Samuel seems to set the stage for an incubation
dream. But as the story unfolds it reveals that this is far removed from
his intentions (vv. 5-10). The divine call that repeatedly wakes him he
mistakes for Eliâ€™s call. Three times he goes to Eli until finally, directed
by Eli how to respond, he follows the directions meticulously,
apparently quite awake by now. As the â€œboyâ€ (v. 1) becomes a
â€œprophetâ€ (v. 20) also the traditional, archetypal prophetic dream
(Num 12,6) turns into a direct encounter, to suit the authorâ€™s idea of a
prophet: one chosen by God to hear his word directly and deliver it
truthfully (1 Sam 3,19-20; cp. Num 12,7-8).
(4) Job 4,12-21: Eliphaz reports an uncanny nocturnal revelation
that brought a sapiential â€œwordâ€ with an a fortiori argumentation on
the physical and moral frailty of humanity (vv. 17-21). The reference
to hmdrt (RSV: â€œwhen deep sleep falls on menâ€, v. 13) may be
intended to indicate the time rather than the condition of the
recipient (34). In distinction from the oblique description in Elihuâ€™s
speech (where the same phrase is used; 33,15) dream terminology is
absent here. The phraseology and structure of Eliphazâ€™ report can be
traced to prophetic or quasi-prophetic accounts of theophany as Gen
15,12, Exod 33,19; 34,6 and 1 Kgs 19,11-12. Yet unlike Abraham,
Moses, and Elijah in these stories, he remains vague about the divine
entity, and the â€œwordâ€ comes to him â€œstealthilyâ€ (v. 12). Apart from
showing the authorâ€™s art in â€˜double entendreâ€™ (35), such qualities
suggest that Job 4,12-21 is an adaptation of the prophetic liminal report
to a sapiential milieu.
(5) Ps 17: A â€œprayerâ€ (according to the superscription) for
godâ€™s response and protection from cruel enemies (vv. 6-14) is
encased between two motifs that are typical of liminal reports:
â€œnightâ€ (v. 3), when God is invited to examine the psalmistâ€™s
innermost being, and awakening (v. 15), here associated with his
hope of seeing Godâ€™s â€œfaceâ€ and â€œformâ€ (hnwmt, the term that in Num
12,8 characterizes Godâ€™s direct appearance to Moses which is
(34) Byron in Hebrew Melodies rendered this phrase: â€œDeep sleep came down
on evâ€™ry eye save mineâ€. See D. CLINES, â€œJob 413: A Byronic Suggestionâ€, ZAW
92 (1980) 289-291.
(35) The technique was first described by K. FULLERTON, â€œDouble Entendre in
the First Speech of Eliphazâ€, JBL 49 (1930) 320-374, but not related to this
particular verse. See also R.J.Z. WERBLOWSKY, â€œStealing the Wordâ€, VT 6 (1956)
105-106.